GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE DIGESTS (These headings appear in practically every digest. In some instances other headings are added for convenience) SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE Suspension of sentence at common law. Statutes. Historical development. Procedure. Persons eligible. Investigation as to eligibility. Terms and conditions. Modification, revocation, and termination. Probation officers: Appointment, qualification, and compensation. Interstate cooperation. History. Present character. By whom administered. Administrative. PROBATION Prior investigation. When held. How conducted. Persons eligible for parole. Method of application for parole. Hearing. Final discharge PAROLE Disposition. Conditions for parole. Supervision. Recommitment. Effect on eligibility for further parole. Effect on original sentence. FOREWORD Three years ago at my direction there was commenced a research project known as the Attorney General's Survey of Release Procedures. The undertaking was financed by a substantial grant of funds by the Works Progress Administration; but the professional direction of the project was made the responsibility of the Attorney General and a staff of persons designated by him. In spite of many difficulties, some foreseen and others unforeseen, the Survey, subject to certain necessary limitations, has been completed. It is my pleasure to present to the public these five volumes of source material dealing with the various methods for the release of persons who have been convicted of crime. There were suggestions at the outset that the Survey be limited to a probe of the subject of parole. If it had been so limited I would not have been interested. My fundamental purpose was to secure a broad view of the whole field of release procedures, including probation, parole, pardon, and other forms of release both from penal institutions and through the courts. No such study had theretofore been undertaken. There is in the United States no uniform system of probation or parole or pardon. Widely varying methods of administering these procedures prevail in the various jurisdictions, State and Federal. Very little is known about them. The study was instituted in a spirit of experimentation. It does not purport to furnish the answers to all of the questions which arise in this broad field. These five volumes do, however, furnish valuable source materials which lay the foundations for intelligent work by legislators, administrators, scientists, students, and all others who are concerned with the problems involved in the punishment and rehabilitation of convicted men. These studies supply a part, but only a part, of the need for sound research data in every phase of criminal law administration. The process of fact-finding must be continuous and exhaustive; and it is my hope that this Survey will act as a stimulus to the development of permanent research programs. The success of this effort may be judged by the extent to which public opinion demands the necessary reforms in the administration of criminal justice which are pointed out in the reports. I express my deep appreciation to all those whose conscientious efforts have gone into the making of the Survey, particularly to Justice Justin Miller, who prior to his appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia served as Director of the Survey, and to Dean Wayne L. Morse, who succeeded him as director and editor in chief. I wish to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to the large number of relief workers and administrative officers of the Survey staff whose loyal services have made possible the completed reports. A special word of thanks is extended to the following groups and individuals: The members of the executive committee of the Survey, Mr. Brien McMahon, Mr. James Bennett, and Mr. Gordon Dean; the statistical specialists, members of the technical advisory committee, Prof. Samuel A. Stouffer, chairman, Mr. Ronald Beattie, Dr. Morris A. Copeland, Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Dr. Alba M. Edwards, Prof. Merrill M. Flood, Dr. Milton C. Forster, Mr. Bennet Mead, Prof. Thorsten Sellin, Mr. Frederick F. Stephan, and Prof. S. S. Wilks; Messrs. Sanford Bates, Lovell Bixby, and Barkey S. Sanders, who were very helpful in preparing the original plans for the Survey; Dr. Milton Forster of the Works Progress Administration whose splendid cooperation made possible the completion of the study; and the several editors, associate and assistant editors whose writings speak for themselves, Mr. Howard Gill, Mr. William Hurwitz, Dean Paul Raymond, Prof. Henry Weihofen, Dr. Hans von Hentig, Miss Helen Fuller, Mr. Charles Morris, Mrs. Elizabeth Peterson, and Mr. Ivar Peterson. I am also under deep obligation to the governors and other officials of the States whose fine cooperation made possible the collection of the source material. HOMER CUMMINGS, DECEMBER 31, 1938. Attorney General. PREFACE Preliminary plans for this extensive survey of probation, parole, pardon, and prison administration were started in the summer of 1935. At that time Attorney General Homer Cummings announced that he would undertake to make a survey of methods used in the releasing of convicted criminals, not only in the system of the Federal Government, but also in that of the various States. This announcement was in response to an increasing volume of protest against the use of parole. Although many people were assuming parole to be a separate procedure apart from all other methods, the Attorney General pointed out that parole must properly be considered in relation to other methods of treatment and release, and he wisely decided to make his study broad and comprehensive rather than devote it to the examination of parole procedures alone. On January 1, 1936, the Works Progress Administration made an allotment of funds for a Federal project to study release procedures, placing the direction of the project in the hands of the Attorney General. From the beginning there were two motives at work in the establishment and operation of this project. To the Works Progress Administration the important objective was that of securing employment for white-collar relief workers. From the point of view of the Attorney General the important objective was the securing of information concerning the various release procedures. The original plan of methods to be followed in carrying forward this study assumed that the work would consist of an analysis of laws and a survey of administrative practices used in dealing with persons found guilty of crime; the compilation of relevant statistics from each State; a detailed comparative analysis of characteristics of individuals placed on probation and parole with those treated by other methods; and the study of characteristics associated with success or failure on probation and parole. It was |